Electroretinograms recorded with skin electrodes in silicone oil-filled eyes

Electroretinograms Recorded with Skin Electrodes from Post-Vitrectomy Silicone Oil Filled Eyes with Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Purpose

To determine the physiological status of the retina by electroretinography (ERG) using skin electrodes and the RETevalTM system in eyes that had undergone pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with silicone oil (SO) tamponade. The vitrectomy was performed for a retinal detachment and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).

Design

Retrospective case series.

Methods

ERGs were recorded with the RETevalTM system (LKC Technologies Inc. Gaithersburg, MD; Welch Allyn, Inc. Skaneateles Falls, NY) from eight eyes with PDR before and after the SO removal. The amplitudes and implicit times of the a- and b-waves of the ERGs before the SO removal were compared to that after the SO removal.

Results

ERGs were recordable in four eyes before and after the SO removal and the a- and b-amplitudes improved in three eyes and worsened in one eye after the SO removal. In the remaining four eyes, ERGs were non-recordable both before and after the SO removal.

Conclusion

These results indicate that ERGs picked up by skin electrodes can be used to assess the physiology of the retina in eyes with a SO tamponade. The flat ERGs in the SO-filled eye indicated the presence of diffuse retinal damage which was confirmed by the flat ERGs after the SO removal.

Vision loss associated with silicone oil endotamponade in vitreoretinal surgery - a review

PURPOSE

To clarify the definition, prevalence and classification of different types of unexplained vision loss associated with silicone oil (SO) endotamponades (SO in situ (SOIS) or after removal of SO (ROSO)) in vitreoretinal surgery and identifying the most specific clinical findings and suggesting possible causes.

METHODS

Review of the literature regarding randomized clinical trials (RCTs), retrospective case-control, cohort studies and case series evaluating the risk of using SO, published in English between 1994 and 2023, conducting a computer-based search of the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase. The search was supplemented using the Medline option 'Related Articles' and consulting review articles on the topic.

RESULTS

Findings from reported clinical examinations in SOIS and ROSO are analyzed and finally different theories regarding the underlying pathophysiology are described. From the clinical point of view, findings have been found in OCT, OCTA, microperimetry and electrophysiological studies. Other clearly identifiable causes of vision loss related to the use of SO are listed and commented as differential diagnosis. Finally, the different physiopathological theories of the two types of causes of unexplained vision have been analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Unexpected vision loss under or after SO tamponade (SOIS and ROSO) is a significant concern which is probably underestimated because it is not a clearly defined and known entity. The most frequently described changes were in the ganglion cell complex but this unexpected vision loss remains a serious and unexplained concern for vitreoretinal surgeons and should be identified by clinicians, addressed by manufacturers and reported to Health Authorities as a serious incident according to the new regulation.

Silicone oil insulation effects on flash electroretinogram and visual evoked potential in patients with retinal detachment

BACKGROUND

Silicone oil is used as endotamponade following vitreoretinal surgery to maintain the retina reattached when indicated. This study investigates the hypothesis that silicone oil causes insulation effects on the retina by affecting its response to light.

METHODS

Electrophysiological responses to a flash stimulus were recorded using full-field electroretinography (ERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEP). Recordings were performed in 9 patients who underwent surgery for retinal detachment, before (1-2 days) and after (2-3 weeks) silicone oil removal (SOR) in both the study and the control eye. Flash ERG and VEP recordings were performed according to the ISCEV standard protocol.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found in the study eye in the amplitudes of the ERG responses and their corresponding ratios, i.e. the amplitude after SOR over the amplitude before SOR, in all conditions tested. No differences were observed in the control eye. The mean ratio of photopic ERG response was 3.4 ± 2.4 for the study and 1.0 ± 0.3 for the control eye (p<0.001). The mean ratio of ERG flicker response was 3.1 ± 2.4 and 1.0 ± 0.3, respectively (p = 0.003). Scotopic flash ERG ratio was 5.0 ± 4.4 for the study and 1.3 ± 0.6 for the control eye (p = 0.012). No differences were observed for the amplitude and latency of flash VEP response after SOR.

CONCLUSIONS

Silicone oil causes a reduction in flash ERG responses; no effect was found on flash VEP responses. ERGs in eyes filled with silicone oil should not be considered representative of retinal functionality, in contrast to VEPs, which are not affected by silicone oil presence.